Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ju-Chin Chu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Chin Chu

Ju-Chin Chu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

• "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."--
  talk) 01:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep although more information would be desirable there is enough to show unequivocal notability . (I assume the nominator wasn't aware of the provisions of WP:PROF, and was not unreasonable reacting to the extreme brevity of the article) DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His academic work is from an early enough time that I don't think we can rely on Google Scholar citation counts for any useful information, but Academia Sinica is enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Academica Sinica. --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though references to his work may be more difficult to dig up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.